David Von Pein

The above is pure Von Pein.

"Geez, I just got proved wrong. Better backpedal and reposition myself before anyone notices"

I haven't backpedaled on anything, Jimmy. Take another Excedrin for your headache.

Obviously, I have never ONCE suggested that a CTer who WASN'T in the "Oswald Shot Nobody" club believes that "all the evidence is fake". Why would I suggest such a stupid thing in the first place?

If a CTer actually has the brains to realize Oswald DID shoot some people on 11/22/63, then that CTer probably also thinks at least SOME of the evidence that hangs LHO is legit. Otherwise, what would make them think Oswald was guilty in the first place? Tea leaves? A Ouija board? They might think some of the evidence was fake, but not ALL of it, which would still be a silly notion under such "Oswald did it" circumstances, because if he really DID shoot JFK & Tippit, then there would be no need for anyone to run around and start faking MORE evidence that suggests the same thing that the LEGITIMATE evidence also proves.

Second try....

Point-blank question for James DiEugenio....

Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?

And while Jimmy ponders the above question for the second time (which he likely will never answer, because Jim has said "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team"), let me repeat an earlier thought....

The evidence, btw, is also perfectly consistent with Lee Harvey Oswald's guilty-like actions displayed by Oswald on 11/22/63 and also perfectly consistent with the out-of-the-ordinary things Oswald did on 11/21/63 (e.g., first-ever Thursday-night trip to Irving and telling Buell Frazier the lie about "curtain rods").

But CTers never bother to add the EVIDENCE to OSWALD'S ACTIONS in order to arrive at a logical conclusion. Conspiracy theorists, instead, will forever separate LHO's odd and guilty-like actions from the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases.

And it couldn't be more obvious why CTers want to keep those things separate and isolated. Because if they don't, then it becomes much more difficult to pretend that all of the physical evidence was manufactured in order to frame an innocent patsy named Oswald.

Somebody prove to me that the last paragraph I just wrote isn't 100% accurate. I bet nobody can. Because it is accurate. And CTers know it.

But Mr. Von Pein most likely isn't listening. I'm betting he still falls back on the argument that ALL CTers think ALL the evidence is "fraudulent/planted/manufactured." That isn't the case.

In short -- The CTers who think Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or Tippit (which encompasses roughly 80% of Internet CTers, which is probably a conservative estimate) most certainly must believe that all of the evidence that points to Oswald is fraudulent.

The only way around that belief is to theorize about an "Oswald look-alike" who shot Tippit with the real Oswald's revolver and a gunman in the TSBD Sniper's Nest who also looks a lot like Oswald who fired shots at the President while using the real Oswald's rifle.

And then, on top of those wholly speculative and nonsensical theories, the CTers would need the real Oswald to act like the guiltiest person in Dallas in the Texas Theater as he waves a gun around while trying to shoot some policemen just 80 minutes after somebody else blew away the President while using the real Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.

Whew! Somebody call the Baloney Police to allow that BS story to get off the ground.

So, yes, whether they admit it or not, it's a pretty good bet that each and every member of the "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" society is also a charter member of the "Everything's Fake" club as well.

Now, the few vocal Internet CTers who actually have the common sense to realize that Oswald shot both Kennedy and Tippit will fall into a different category. They can easily believe that the evidence against LHO is legitimate, but also believe that the CIA or some other agency hired Oswald to kill the President. But as I look around the Internet here in 2015, there aren't many CTers who seem to fall into that category. Most Internet conspiracists want to have their Patsy cake and eat it too. God knows why, but that's the way it is.

Point-blank question for James DiEugenio....

Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?

You're not well, are you Glenn? Touché?

You guys (CTers) are really something. You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured.

Support this statement, please?

Why pretend otherwise, Glenn? You have surely got to know that a lot of Internet CTers DO, indeed, think that ALL of the evidence that points to Oswald is fake/phony evidence. Because if it's not all fake, then Oswald is very likely GUILTY, correct? (How could he not be?)

And there have been several CTers at this forum who have said they think all of the evidence against LHO is fraudulent (or words to that effect), with the comments by Neal and Drew below certainly leaning in that direction, wouldn't you say? Granted, Ken Drew's comments are just flat-out weird, idiotic, and Twilight Zone-ish in nature, but I kinda doubt that Ken is suggesting that the evidence against Oswald is legit....

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC.

TOM NEAL SAID:

JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence.

KENNETH DREW SAID:

There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero.

The evidence, btw, is also perfectly consistent with Lee Harvey Oswald's guilty-like actions displayed by Oswald on 11/22/63 and also perfectly consistent with the out-of-the-ordinary things Oswald did on 11/21/63 (e.g., first-ever Thursday-night trip to Irving and telling Buell Frazier the lie about "curtain rods").

But CTers never bother to add the evidence to Oswald's actions in order to arrive at a logical conclusion. Conspiracy theorists, instead, will forever separate LHO's odd and guilty-like actions from the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases.

And it couldn't be more obvious why CTers want to keep those things separate and isolated. Because if they don't, then it becomes much more difficult to pretend that all of the physical evidence was manufactured in order to frame an innocent patsy named Oswald.

Somebody prove to me that the last paragraph I just wrote isn't 100% accurate. I bet nobody can. Because it is accurate. And CTers know it.

You guys (CTers) are really something. You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured.

I ask: Is that a reasonable thing to believe? Especially when the evidence was collected by MULTIPLE agencies and was found in MULTIPLE places (TSBD, Parkland, and the limo itself).

Get real. (CTers are anything but. Real, that is.)

And I suppose Vince B. is just lying some more when he said this on page 442 of the Endnotes (on the CD-ROM) in "Reclaiming History"....

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....

The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi

In the intro to the WR, on page xii, "Immediately after the assassination more than 80 additional FBI personnel were transferred to the Dallas office on a temporary basis to assist in the investigation. Beginning November 22, 1963 the FBI conducted approximately 25,000 interviews and reinterviews...and by September 11, 1964, submitted over 2,300 reports totaling approximately 25,400 pages to the Commission."

Now, in the next sentence they cite stats which show the SS was a distant second with 1,550 interviews.

The idea that the WC staff was going to even approach those kinds of stats is so ludicrous only in the pages of RH could it exist.

I never said the FBI didn't do a whole lot of work on the Kennedy case. I'm just pointing out that the WC staff ALSO did a lot of investigating too.

And Vince Bugliosi never suggested that the Commission's investigative work actually surpassed that of the FBI's input either. Vince, in fact, was always trotting out the "25,000 FBI interviews" fact during his radio interviews. And, of course, Bugliosi highlights that figure in the Introduction section of "Reclaiming History" as well....

"The FBI alone (there were also companion investigations of the assassination by other agencies) conducted an unprecedented 25,000 interviews as the investigative arm of the Warren Commission, and submitted 2,300 separate reports. Eighty additional FBI agents were ordered into the Dallas area alone, and a great many more agents around the country worked on various parts of the case. A total of 3,154 items of evidence were introduced before the Commission in its investigation of the assassination." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page xxxiii of "RH"

It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika,: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing.

More smelly garbage from DiEugenio---proving nothing.

"Troika". and .

And Hoover was doing most of the investigative work.

Hoover's agents at the FBI did a lot of the work, yes. But the WC staff and counsel did tons of investigative work on their own too. ....

"And the Commission didn't limit itself to taking testimony, which would alone immunize it from the total-reliance-on-the-FBI argument. Its staff went beyond this, going out into the field, mostly in Dallas. Assistant Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball said, "As lawyers, we investigated the case thoroughly. We got some leads as to who to talk to from the FBI. But we went into the field, we talked to every witness that we reported on. We took depositions. We took people before the Commission. We handled this like we would handle...any lawsuit." "

-- Pages 333-334 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi

​The junior counsel, and even the senior counsel were nothing.

Yeah, right, Jimmy. They were merely the ones doing almost all of the heavy lifting (i.e., the investigating and interrogation of witnesses). And yet they were "nothing"? That's a crock, Jimmy.

Maybe you should go back and learn a little more, Jimbo. (Start with Page 334 of "Reclaiming History".)

The WC were advocates for the prosecution of Oswald.

And Jimmy says that even though he knows that several of the WC lawyers said exactly the OPPOSITE, i.e., lawyers such as David Belin and Burt Griffin and Joseph Ball have said that they WANTED to find evidence of a conspiracy, but they couldn't do it.

But, naturally, Belin, Griffin, and Ball (et al) were just lying through their collective teeth when they made such statements---right, Jim?

Was there even ONE lawyer on the entire staff of the WC or the HSCA who was honest, Jim? Anybody at all?

The shooting was over and Hill was late getting there; sad but true. He was the "Jessica Lynch" of the assassination- a feel-good false "hero" in order to assuage the public and deflect from their gross negligence.

And so you wrote a 576-page book to tell people what they already knew ---- I.E., The Secret Service Blew It In Dallas On November 22, 1963.

What's on the other 575 pages?

Reprise....

And isn't it funny that BOTH the WC and the HSCA had no problem at all coming to the conclusion that CE399 was THE EXACT BULLET that injured both JFK and John Connally. And that's a lot of LAWYERS making that claim.

(But I guess all of those lawyers working for the WC and HSCA should take a back seat to those two seasoned courtroom professionals and inimitable barristers---James DiEugenio and Glenn Nall.)

on the other hand, continuing to place good faith in the conclusions formed by the WC and the HSCA does seem to be limited to...

...people with some basic common sense and an ability to evaluate the evidence properly?

Yeah, I agree. It is.

So, Vince, you think the SS deliberately stripped JFK's security in Dallas so that the President could be murdered more easily? Is that it?

And if that's not IT --- what is?

I mean, it couldn't be more obvious that the Secret Service didn't do their job very well of protecting the President's life on 11/22/63. But do we really need a 576-page book by Vincent Palamara to tell us that?

HILL CANNOT BE TRUSTED

Yeah, that must be why thousands of CTers just love to prop up and TRUST Clinton J. Hill when he said that the BACK of JFK's head was blown out. Right, Vince?

BTW, why did Boring lie about not [being] in Dallas that day?

He didn't......

Regarding Vince Palamara's 2014 claim that Secret Service agent Floyd Boring was lying and was really present at Love Field in Dallas on 11/22/63 instead of being elsewhere at that time....

FRANK BADALSON SAID THIS.

You sound lame and pathetic on this one, Davey. I have to agree with Jim on this one.

No, the "lame and pathetic" one is the one who thinks everybody under the sun was a lying SOB.

Given the manpower they had available to them in 1963 (which wasn't very much), the SS couldn't possibly check every single window in every building along a motorcade route in a big city like Dallas. Not possible---despite Fletcher Prouty's arguments to the contrary.

(notice, everyone, how DVP never even read any of the numerous links I provided)

How would you know that, Vince?

yes- blatant lies, as proven by pre-11/22/63 newspaper accounts and the man who wrote the Secret Service manual, Chief Inspector Michael Torina.

All bs because the agents were terrified of losing their jobs, their pensions, etc. CYA

Bull, Vince.

A person who has to resort to "THEY ALL LIED" is a desperate person.

In addition, we can know by reading the official Secret Service assassination report that the U.S. Secret Service did not have a habit of checking every building and every window along motorcade routes in 1963. See pages 12 and 13 of the 12/18/63 Secret Service Report (Warren Commission Document No. 3).

More lies??

The security in Dallas was woefully short of the mark.

You're only saying that because JFK was killed in Dallas. But the motorcade configuration and the security that was DIRECTLY SURROUNDING the President in Dealey Plaza was virtually identical when compared to other pre-Nov. 22 motorcades. And that's a fact. And you surely know it.

As "Welton Hartford", DVP posts a video of the San Diego trip...

That, of course, never happened. I've never used an alias on the Internet.

Perhaps somebody named Welton Hartford embedded a video from my YouTube channel. Is that what happened, Vince? You should get it straight before posting.

Hartford does have a YouTube channel with a part of the San Diego video on it. But I am certainly not Welton Hartford -- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJDYARYYg4qTW_jXA1qzfjA/videos

And all of the points I have made about the ridiculous "Secret Service Standdown" theory are still valid points which indicate (via many photos and films and SS documents, such as CD 821) that the security in the Dallas motorcade was exactly the same as it was in many pre-Nov. 22 motorcades. And Vince Palamara knows this is true. And so does anyone else who has bothered to look at the many photos and films of JFK's pre-Nov. 22 parades.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html